cape disappointment pile driving report - tethys · 2020. 1. 27. · ˇˆ ˇˆ˙˝˝˛ pile # date...

WASHINGTON STATE PARKS CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT WAVE BARRIER PROJECT

UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH PILE DRIVING AT

THE CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY, WAVE BARRIER

PROJECT

Prepared by: Jim Laughlin

Washington State Department of Transportation

Office of Air Quality and Noise 15700 Dayton Avenue North,

P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710

March 2006

Table of Contents

List of Tables _____________________________________________________________________i

List of Figures ___________________________________________________________________ ii

Executive Summary ___________________________________________________________ 1

Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 3

Project Description ________________________________________________________________ 3

Underwater Sound Levels ______________________________________________________ 6

Characteristics of Underwater Sound_________________________________________________ 6

Methodology_________________________________________________________________ 7

Bubble Curtain Design _____________________________________________________________ 9

Results_____________________________________________________________________ 11

Underwater Sound Levels _________________________________________________________ 11

Conclusions ________________________________________________________________ 27

References _________________________________________________________________ 28

Appendix A– Waveform Analysis Figures ________________________________________ 29

Pile 1 – Conbest - Bubble Curtain Off _______________________________________________ 29

Pile 1 – Conbest Bubble Curtain On _________________________________________________ 30

Pile 1 – Wood Bubble Curtain Off __________________________________________________ 31

Pile 1 – Wood Bubble Curtain On___________________________________________________ 32

Pile 1 – No Pile Cap Bubble Curtain Off _____________________________________________ 33

Pile 2 – No Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain Off _____________________________________________ 35

Pile 2 – No Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain On _____________________________________________ 36

Pile 3 – Micarta Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain Off ________________________________________ 37

Pile 3 – Micarta Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain On_________________________________________ 38

Pile 4 – Nylon Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain Off __________________________________________ 39

Pile 4 – Nylon Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain On __________________________________________ 40

Pile 5 – Wood Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain Off __________________________________________ 41

Pile 5 – Wood Pile Cap, Bubble Curtain On __________________________________________ 42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary Table of Monitoring Results. _____________________________________________1 Table 2: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 1, Midwater. ________________13 Table 3: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 1, Bottom. ___________________13 Table 4: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 2, Midwater. ________________15 Table 5: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 2, Bottom. ___________________15 Table 6: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 3, Midwater. ________________18 Table 7: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 3, Bottom. ___________________18

Table 8: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 4, Midwater. ________________20 Table 9: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 4, Bottom. ___________________20 Table 10: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 5, Midwater. _______________22 Table 11: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 5, Bottom.__________________22 Table 12: Sound Reductions Achieved with the Different Pile Cap Materials (bubble curtain off). ______________________________________________________________________________________23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Pile cap types tested in this monitoring project (Conbest pile cap not shown). _____________________3 Figure 2: 12-inch diameter steel piles with interlocking ‘wings’ used to create the wave barrier (photo courtesy of Washington State Parks and Recreation, R. Johnson)._________________________________________________4 Figure 3: Location of underwater noise monitoring sites at the Cape Disappointment Wave Barrier project. Note: Piles are not to scale. __________________________________________________________________________5 Figure 4: Underwater Sound Level Measurement Equipment __________________________________________7 Figure 5: Diagram of hydrophone deployment. _____________________________________________________9 Figure 6: “U” shaped bubble curtain for use on wave barrier piles. ____________________________________10 Figure 7: Fractured and compressed wood pile cap after being used on piles 5, 6, and 7 (photo courtesy of Washington State Parks and Recreation, R. Johnson) ________________________________________________12 Figure 8: Waveform recording indicating the effects on amplitude with bubble curtain on versus bubble curtain off for pile 3. __________________________________________________________________________________17 Figure 9: Spectral Frequency Analysis comparing Conbest and wood pile caps versus no caps with bubble curtain on and off.__________________________________________________________________________________24 Figure 10: Spectral Frequency Analysis comparing Micarta, Nylon, and wood pile caps versus no caps with bubble curtain on and off. ___________________________________________________________________________24 Figure 11: Airborne measurement locations ( ) with A-weighted maximum values. ________________________26 Figure 12: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Conbest pile cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________29 Figure 13: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Conbest Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________30 Figure 14: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________31 Figure 15: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________32 Figure 16: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________33 Figure 17: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom._________________________________________________________________________________34 Figure 18: Waveform Analysis of Pile 2 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Final Off, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________35 Figure 19: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 2 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom. ________________________________________________________________________36 Figure 20: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 3 Sound Pressure Levels with Micarta Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom. _____________________________________________________________________37 Figure 21: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 3 Sound Pressure Levels with Bubble Curtain Second Off, Midwater and Bottom._________________________________________________________________________________38 Figure 22: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 4 Sound Pressure Levels with Nylon Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom. _____________________________________________________________________39 Figure 23: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 4 Sound Pressure Levels with Nylon Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom. _____________________________________________________________________40 Figure 24: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 5 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom. _____________________________________________________________________41 Figure 25: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 5 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom. _____________________________________________________________________42

��

��

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This technical report describes the data collected during pile driving efforts at the Cape Disappointment boat launch facility near Ilwaco, Washington during the month of December 2005. One 12-inch diameter standard steel pile and four 12-inch piles with 1.5-foot wide interlocking steel ‘wings’ on two sides were monitored at different water depths at the Cape Disappointment boat launch facility.

Piles were driven using different pile cap materials and monitored to look for differences (in sound pressure?). The pile cap materials tested were wood (plywood), Conbest, Micarta, and Nylon. Piles were driven with an air hammer. Table 1 summarizes the results for each pile monitored. The bubble curtain was tested with the bubbles off and then on during the pile driving events.

Micarta achieved the best sound level reductions, with the exception of wood, while retaining hammer efficiencies and minimizing safety hazards.

Ambient sound levels averaged approximately 148 dBpeak to 155 dBpeak with construction equipment. The maximum sound reduction achieved using a pile cap was 27 dB with the wood pile cap. The maximum sound reduction achieved with the bubble curtain was 17 dB.

Table 1: Summary Table of Monitoring Results.

Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak

(Pascals ±±±± s.d.)

Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec) OFF 207 189 8667± 5225 - 173 11.7

Conbest ON 198 181 5215 ± 1515 5 166 4.4 OFF 1801 165 812 ± 168 - 154 37.7

Wood ON 181 170 707 ± 209 1 157 14.4 OFF 208 191 16174 ± 4625 - 175 1.8

13 feet (midwater)

None ON 199 183 4625 ± 2564 11 168 1.9 OFF 205 188 8861 ± 4338 - 173 11.7

Conbest ON 206 187 9533 ± 3961 5 173 10.7 OFF 181 168 910 ± 165 - 157 34.8

Wood ON 181 169 712 ± 191 2 157 36.6 OFF 2051 185 9550 ± 5370 - 171 1.5

1 12/13/05

25 feet (bottom)

None ON 193 176 2243 ± 845 13 164 2.7 OFF 203 188 7696 ± 4044 - 175 3.7 8 feet

(midwater) None ON 195 176 1665 ± 258 14 165 12.6 OFF 202 189 6771 ± 4226 - 176 4.6

2 12/14/05 16 feet

(bottom) None ON 195 179 1956 ± 787 11 166 12.6 OFF 1951 182 554 ± 138 - 169 7.8 8 feet

(midwater) Micarta ON 183 169 164 ± 26 11 157 12.7 OFF 1941 182 3054 ± 1292 - 169 13.1

3 12/14/05 16 feet

(bottom) Micarta ON 1861 175 1345 ± 209 7 161 21.2

��

��

Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec) OFF 1961 183 5247 ± 709 - 169 12.4 8 feet

(midwater) Nylon ON 184 169 681 ± 241 17 157 5.4 OFF 1941 181 4176 ± 598 - 168 7.8

4 12/14/05 16 feet

(bottom) Nylon ON 1881 176 1800 ± 167 7 161 2.9 OFF 1881 175 1677 ± 544 - 162 6.8 8 feet

(midwater) Wood ON 182 171 807 ± 226 6 157 16.9 OFF 190 176 2092 ± 601 - 165 22.1

5 12/14/05 16 feet

(bottom) Wood ON 186 179 1592 ± 277 2 163 17.1

1 – Absolute peak value is peak underpressure.

��

��

INTRODUCTION

This technical report presents results of underwater sound levels measured during the driving of one 12-inch standard steel pile and four 12-inch steel piles with 1.5 foot steel interlocking ‘wings’ on two sides at the Cape Disappointment boat launch facility in December 2005 (Interagency Agreement GCA4755). The environmental review and permitting effort led to a negotiated 'mitigated determination of non-significance' (MDNS) where a framework of successive mitigation decisions were made by an interagency team with the goal to achieve the greatest protection for listed species.

The piles were driven to replace the existing wood wave barrier. The five piles were monitored while being driven with different pile cap materials at different water depths at the facility. The pile cap materials used were wood (plywood), Conbest, Micarta, and Nylon (Figure 1). The Conbest material is not shown in Figure 1 but is similar to Micarta in size and thickness but looks like a layered aluminum disk in composition. The bubble curtain was tested with on/off cycles during each pile driving event. Figure 2 shows the piles with ‘wings’ and Figure 3 shows the locations of monitored piles.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This project is removing old rotting sections of the boat launch wave barrier and replaced it with a steel pile wave barrier. The project location is on the north side of the Cape Disappointment boat launch facility near Ilwaco, Washington (Figure 3). Figure 3 shows the approximate pile locations. Monitoring for pile 1 was 33 feet southwest of the pile and for piles 2-5 33 feet northwest of each pile between the pile and the barge. Water depths at the monitoring locations varied from 12 to 26 feet deep. There was a substantial tidal current in the area during the monitoring of the piles.

Figure 1: Pile cap types tested in this monitoring project (Conbest pile cap not shown).

Wood Caps

Nylon Caps

Micarta Caps

��

��

Figure 2: 12-inch diameter steel piles with interlocking ‘wings’ used to create the wave barrier (photo courtesy of Washington State Parks and Recreation, R. Johnson).

��

��

Figure 3: Location of underwater noise monitoring sites at the Cape Disappointment Wave Barrier project. Note: Piles are not to scale.

Columbia River

Barge

Pile 1

Piles 2 - 5

��

��

UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS

CHARACTERISTICS OF UNDERWATER SOUND

Several descriptors are used to describe underwater noise impacts. Two common descriptors are the instantaneous peak sound pressure level (SPL) and the Root Mean Square (RMS) pressure level during the impulse, which are sometimes referred to as the peak and RMS level respectively. The peak pressure is the instantaneous maximum or minimum overpressure observed during each pulse and can be presented in Pascals (Pa) or decibels (dB) referenced to a pressure of 1 micropascal (µPa). Since water and air are two distinctly different media, a different sound pressure level reference pressure is used for each. In water, the most commonly used reference pressure is 1 µPa whereas the reference pressure for air is 20 µPa. The equation to calculate the sound pressure level is:

Sound Pressure Level (SPL) = 20 log (p/pref), where pref is the reference pressure (i.e., 1 µPa for water)

For comparison, an underwater sound level of equal perceived loudness would be 62 dB higher to a comparable sound level in air.

The RMS level is the square root of the energy divided by the impulse duration. This level, presented in dB re: 1 µPa, is the mean square pressure level of the pulse. It has been used by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in criteria for judging impacts to marine mammals from underwater impulse-type sounds. The majority of literature uses peak sound pressures to evaluate injuries to fish. Except where otherwise noted, sound levels reported in this report are expressed in dB re: 1 µPa.

Rise time is another descriptor used in waveform analysis to describe the characteristics of underwater impulses. Rise time is the time in microseconds (ms) it takes the waveform to go from background levels to absolute peak level.

Sound Exposure Level (SEL), frequently used for human noise exposures, has recently been suggested as a possible metric to quantify impacts to fish (Hastings and Popper 2005). SEL is often used as a metric for a single acoustic event and is often used as an indication of the energy dose. SEL is calculated by summing the cumulative pressure squared (p2), integrating over time, and normalizing to one second. This metric accounts for both negative and positive pressures because p2 is positive for both and thus both are treated equally in the cumulative sum of p2 (Hastings and Popper, 2005). The units for SEL are dB re: 1 micropascal2-sec.

Because SEL is a metric based on energy, sound exposure for a single strike can be summed to estimate the total energy exposure from multiple strikes, which can then be compared to the recommended interim guidance. Some recovery of the tissue will take place during the interval between strikes that is not taken into account, so this approach should be conservative.

Comparing an energy dose or energy flux density, Ef , in J/ m2 with an allowable SEL an approximation for a plane wave is used. The relationship between sound pressure (p) and particle velocity (v) is p = (�c)v, where � (kg/m3) is the density of the fluid and c (m/s) is the speed of sound in the fluid is also used. The product, �c is called the characteristic impedance and its value is about 1.6 × 106 (kg/m2-s) for seawater and 1.5 × 106 (kg/m2-s) for freshwater. Using these values an allowable SEL can be calculated for a given number of pile strikes and a given time duration (in seconds) for the sound pulse generated by each strike. For example,

SEL per Strike = 10 log [�c Ef /10-12/(# strikes)].

��

��

METHODOLOGY

Underwater sound levels were measured using two Reson TC 4013 hydrophones. One hydrophone was positioned approximately at mid-water level. The second hydrophone was positioned approximately one foot from the bottom. The hydrophones were located at a distance of approximately 33 feet from the pile being monitored. The measurement system includes a Brüel and Kjær Nexus type 2692 4-channel signal conditioner, which kept the high underwater sound levels within the dynamic range of the signal analyzer (Figure 4). The output of the Nexus signal conditioner is received by a Dactron Photon 4-channel signal spectrum analyzer that is attached to an Itronix GoBook II laptop computer. The waveform of the pile strikes along with the number of strikes, overpressure minimum and maximum, absolute peak values, and RMS sound levels, integrated over 90% of the duration of the pulse, were captured and stored on the laptop hard drive for subsequent signal analysis. The system and software calibration is checked annually against a NIST traceable standard. The operation of the hydrophone was checked in the field using a GRAS type 42AC high-level pistonphone with a hydrophone adaptor. The pistonphone signal was 146 dB re: 1 µPa. The pistonphone signal levels produced by the pistonphone and measured by the measurement system were within 1 dB and the operation of the system was judged acceptable over the study period. A photograph of the system and its components are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Underwater Sound Level Measurement Equipment

Signal analysis software provided with the Photon was set at a sampling rate of one sample every 41.7 µs (9,500 Hz). This sampling rate is more than sufficient for the bandwidth of interest for

PHOTON

LAPTOP

HYDROPHONE

NEXUS

�� !!!!��

��

underwater pile driving impact sound and gives sufficient resolution to catch the peaks and other relevant data. The anti-aliasing filter included in the Photon also allows the capture of the true peak.

Due to the high degree of variability between the absolute peaks for each pile strike an average peak and RMS value is computed along with the standard deviation (s.d.) giving an indication of the amount of variation around the average for each pile.

A vibratory hammer was used to drive the first two piles initially. Then all piles were driven to appropriate depth with an air hammer. The Vulcan air impact hammer with an energy rating of 52,000 ft.-lbs. was used for this project. This is the maximum energy output for the air hammer that can only be sustained for a few seconds at a time. Actual operation of the air hammer is more likely to be approximately 50% to 70% of this maximum energy for most pile installations.

The substrate consisted of a mix of silt and mud with a harder glacial till layer below. Piles driven were one open-ended hollow steel pile, 12-inches in diameter with a 3/8-inch wall thickness. Four additional open-ended hollow steel piles 12-inches in diameter with 1.5 foot interlocking ‘wings’ on two sides were driven to form the wave barrier. All measurements were made 33 feet from the pile, at mid-water depth and one foot from the bottom.

Each measured pile site is described below:

Pile 1 – Located approximately 150 feet offshore at the farthest end of the new wave barrier (See Figure 1). The pile is located in 26 feet of water.

Piles 2 – 5 Piles 2 through 5 were driven while interlocked with three or more other piles starting approximately 10 feet inshore of pile 1. These piles ranged in depth between 16 and 12 feet of water dependent on tidal level.

The location of the hydrophones is determined by allowing a clear line of sight between the pile and the hydrophone, with no other structures nearby. The distance from the pile to the hydrophone location was measured using a Bushnell Yardage Pro rangefinder. The hydrophone was attached to a weighted nylon cord anchored with a five-pound weight. The cord and hydrophone cables were attached to surface floats that kept the hydrophones at the proper location in the water column (Figure 5). For pile 1, the hydrophones were in a location with no other obstructions near it. For piles 2 through 5, the hydrophones were located between the pile and the barge.

�� """"��

��

Figure 5: Diagram of hydrophone deployment.

BUBBLE CURTAIN DESIGN Two bubble curtain designs were used by the contractor at the Cape Disappointment Boat Launch facility. The first was a standard single ring placed at the bottom of pile 1 based on the design of Longmuir and Lively (2001). The second bubble curtain was a “U” shaped design that enabled the curtain to be fitted around the base of several piles that were interlocked together in a wall design (Figure 6).

It is important to note that during the use of the “U” shaped bubble curtain on piles 2 through 5 the tidal current swept some of the bubble curtain away from the pile being driven. This happened after high tide as water began to recede rapidly. However, as can be seen in the analysis that follows it had little or no impact on the effectiveness of the bubble curtain.

Pool Floats

Hydrophones

Inner Tube

Weight

Chord Hydrophone

Cable

��

��

Figure 6: “U” shaped bubble curtain for use on wave barrier piles.

��

��

RESULTS UNDERWATER SOUND LEVELS Pile 1

Pile 1 was driven with an air hammer in a water depth of 26 feet. The bubble curtain was off at the start of the drive and then 22 seconds into the drive the bubble curtain was turned on. Pile 1 was tested first using a pile cap material of Conbest and then restruck with a wood pile cap and then finally restruck with no pile cap. Tables 2 and 3 indicate the results of monitoring for Pile 1.

CONBEST

The highest absolute peak from the midwater hydrophone is 207 dBpeak and the absolute highest peak from the bottom hydrophone is 206 dBpeak for Conbest. The highest midwater and bottom RMS were both 189 dBRMS and 188 dBRMS respectively. The highest midwater and bottom SEL for the peak strike were both 173 dBSEL. Rise time for the Conbest pile cap was relatively long indicating a reduction of the transfer of energy from the hammer. Virtually all of the peak values exceed 180 dBpeak and the RMS values exceeded 150 dBRMS for both the midwater and bottom hydrophones.

Typical SEL values are 20 to 30 dB lower than the absolute peak. The SEL for Conbest averaged around 33 dB lower than the peak. This is also an indication of the delay of the absolute peak level mentioned above and somewhat lower sound levels for the waveform peaks overall.

The SEL per strike estimates in Tables 2 and 3 indicate that none of the calculated SEL values for a single strike (peak strike) exceeded the estimated summed SEL per strike thresholds.

The average sound reductions achieved with Conbest is 5 dB. The average peak sound reduction achieved with the bubble curtain was 5 dB. This indicates that the bubble curtain was providing a sound level reduction that is typical of most bubble curtains.

WOOD

The highest absolute peak from the midwater and bottom hydrophones is 181 dBpeak for wood. The highest midwater RMS was 170 dBRMS and bottom RMS was 169 dBRMS. The highest midwater and bottom SEL for the peak strike were both 157 dBSEL. Rise times for the wood pile cap were quite long indicating a substantial reduction of the transfer of energy from the hammer. Figure 7 shows a wood pile cap that has been compressed and shattered after use on only three piles.

��

��

Figure 7: Fractured and compressed wood pile cap after being used on piles 5, 6, and 7 (photo courtesy of Washington State Parks and Recreation, R. Johnson)

Five peak strikes (11%) exceed 180 dBpeak at the midwater hydrophone and six peak strikes (13%) at the bottom hydrophone. All the RMS values exceeded 150 dBRMS for both the midwater and bottom hydrophones.

The SEL for the wood pile cap averaged around 25 dB lower than the peak. None of the calculated SEL values for a single strike (peak strike) exceeded the estimated summed SEL per strike thresholds.

The average sound reductions achieved with wood is 24 db. The average peak sound reduction achieved with the bubble curtain was 2 dB. This indicates that the bubble curtain was not functioning as well as anticipated.

��

��

Table 2: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 1, Midwater.

Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak

(Pascals ±±±± s.d.) n2

Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 207 189 8667± 5225 46 - 179 ± 171 173 11.7 204

Conbest ON 198 181 5215 ± 1515 56 5 175 ± 160 166 4.4 203 OFF 1801 165 812 ± 168 6 - 163 ± 148 154 37.7 213

Wood ON 181 170 707 ± 209 41 1 165 ± 149 157 14.4 204 OFF 208 191 16174 ± 4625 12 - 184 ± 177 175 1.8 210

1 12/13/05 13 feet (midwater)

None ON 199 183 4625 ± 2564 30 11 175 ± 164 168 1.9 206

Total: 191 Total: 186 1 – Absolute peak value is peak underpressure. 2 – Number of pile strikes included in the average calculations. Table 3: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 1, Bottom.

Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 205 188 8861 ± 4338 46 - 178 ± 171 173 11.7 204

Conbest ON 206 187 9533 ± 3961 56 5 175 ± 160 173 10.7 203 OFF 181 168 910 ± 165 6 - 165 ± 151 157 34.8 213

Wood ON 181 169 712 ± 191 41 2 166 ± 152 157 36.6 204 OFF 2051 185 9550 ± 5370 12 - 180 ± 173 171 1.5 210

1 12/13/05 25 feet (bottom)

None ON 193 176 2243 ± 845 30 13 172 ± 158 164 2.7 206

Total: 191 Total: 186 1 – Absolute peak value is peak underpressure. 2 – Number of pile strikes included in the average calculations.

��

��

Pile 2

Pile 2 was driven with an air hammer in a water depth of 16 feet. The bubble curtain was off at the start of the drive and then 166 seconds into the drive the bubble curtain was turned on. Pile 2 was tested using no pile cap material. Tables 4 and 5 indicate the results of monitoring for Pile 2.

The highest absolute peak from the midwater hydrophone is 203 dBpeak and the absolute highest peak from the bottom hydrophone is 202 dBpeak. The highest midwater RMS was 188 dBRMS and bottom RMS was both and 189 dBRMS respectively. The highest midwater SEL was 175 dBSEL and bottom SEL was 176 dBSEL for the peak strikes. Rise times with no pile cap were relatively short with the bubble curtain turned off but then lengthened when the bubbles were turned on. 137 peak pile strike (71%) values exceeded 180 dBpeak for the midwater and bottom hydrophones with the bubble curtain on. Virtually all the RMS values exceeded 150 dBRMS for both the midwater and bottom hydrophones.

Typical SEL values are 20 to 30 dB lower than the absolute peak. The SEL with no pile cap averaged around 28 dB lower than the peak. This is also an indication of the delay of the absolute peak level mentioned above and somewhat lower sound levels for the waveform peaks overall.

The SEL per strike estimates in Tables 4 and 5 calculated using the formula given in the ‘Characteristics of Sound’ chapter above indicate that none of the calculated SEL values for a single strike (peak strike) exceeded the estimated summed SEL per strike thresholds.

The average peak sound reductions achieved with the bubble curtain ranged between 11 and 14 dB. This indicates that the bubble curtain was providing sound reduction better than a typical bubble curtain.

��

��


Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 203 188 7696 ± 4044 14 - 181 ± 175 175 3.7 209

2 12/14/05 8 feet (midwater) None

ON 195 176 1665 ± 258 180 14 169 ± 161 165 12.6 198 Total: 194 Total: 198

1 – Absolute peak value is peak underpressure. 2 – Number of pile strikes included in the average calculations. Table 5: Summary of Underwater Sound Level Impacts for Pile 2, Bottom.

Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 202 189 6771 ± 4226 14 - 181 ± 175 176 4.6 209

2 12/14/05 16 feet (bottom) None

ON 195 179 1956 ± 787 180 11 171 ± 160 166 12.6 198 Total: 194 Total: 198

1 – Absolute peak value is peak underpressure. 2 – Number of pile strikes included in the average calculations.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

Pile 3

Pile 3 was driven with an air hammer in a water depth of 16 feet. The bubble curtain was off at the start of the drive and then 91 seconds into the drive the bubble curtain was turned on. Pile 3 was tested using a Micarta pile cap material. Tables 6 and 7 indicate the results of monitoring for Pile 3.

MICARTA

The highest absolute peak from the midwater hydrophone is 195 dBpeak and the absolute highest peak from the bottom hydrophone is 194 dBpeak for Micarta. The highest midwater and bottom RMS were both 189 dBRMS and 188 dBRMS respectively. The highest midwater and bottom SEL for the peak strike were both 169 dBSEL. Rise time for the Micarta pile cap is relatively long indicating a reduction of the transfer of energy from the hammer. The highest midwater SEL for the peak strike was 178 dBSEL and 180 dBSEL for the bottom. Only 55 midwater pile strike peak values (37%) exceeded 180 dBpeak with the bubble curtain on. All but five bottom pile strike peak values exceeded 180 dBpeak. Virtually all pile strike RMS values exceeded 150 dBRMS for both the midwater and bottom hydrophones.

Typical SEL values are 20 to 30 dB lower than the absolute peak. The SEL for Micarta averaged around 26 dB lower than the peak. This is also an indication of the delay of the absolute peak level mentioned above and somewhat lower sound levels for the waveform peaks overall.


The average peak sound reductions achieved with the bubble curtain ranged between 7 and 11 dB. This can be seen visually in Figure 8. This indicates that the bubble curtain was functioning slightly better than anticipated.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

File_input2(t)

2530 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250

6900

-7000

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Time (seconds)

Pa

Figure 8: Waveform recording indicating the effects on amplitude with bubble curtain on versus bubble curtain off for pile 3.

Bubbles Off

Bubbles On

��#��$�%��&��'(��)

��% ��

��#��$�%��&��'(��)

��% ��

��#��$�%��&��'(��)

��% ��

��#��$�%��&��'(��)

��% ��

�!

�!�!

�!��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Tab

le 6

: Su

mm

ary

of U

nder

wat

er S

ound

Lev

el Im

pact

s for

Pile

3, M

idw

ater

.

Pile

#

Dat

e H

ydro

phon

e D

epth

Pi

le C

ap

Mat

eria

l

Bub

ble

C

urta

in

Air

O

N/O

FF

Abs

olut

e Pe

ak

(dB

)

RM

S

(pea

k)

(dB

)

Ave

rage

Pe

ak

(Pas

cals

± ±±±

s.d.

) n2

Ave

rage

D

ecib

el

Red

uctio

n fr

om

Bub

ble

Cur

tain

Ave

rage

R

MS

(dB

± ±±± s.

d.)

SEL

(d

B)

Ris

e

Tim

e (m

sec)

Est

imat

ed

SEL

Pe

r St

rike

O

FF

1951

182

554

± 13

8 13

-

175

± 16

3 16

9 7.

8 20

9 3

12/1

4/05

8

feet

(m

idw

ater

) M

icar

ta

ON

18

3 16

9 16

4 ±

26

134

11

164

± 14

8 15

7 12

.7

199

T

otal

: 14

7

Tot

al:

199

1 – A

bsol

ute

peak

val

ue is

pea

k un

derp

ress

ure.

2 –

Num

ber o

f pile

str

ikes

incl

uded

in th

e av

erag

e ca

lcul

atio

ns.

Tab

le 7

: Su

mm

ary

of U

nder

wat

er S

ound

Lev

el Im

pact

s for

Pile

3, B

otto

m.

Pile

#

Dat

e H

ydro

phon

e D

epth

Pi

le C

ap

Mat

eria

l

Bub

ble

C

urta

in

Air

O

N/O

FF

Abs

olut

e Pe

ak

(dB

)

RM

S

(pea

k)

(dB

)

Ave

rage

Pe

ak

(Pas

cals

± ±±±

s.d.

) n2

Ave

rage

D

ecib

el

Red

uctio

n fr

om

Bub

ble

Cur

tain

Ave

rage

R

MS

(dB

± ±±± s.

d.)

SEL

(d

B)

Ris

e

Tim

e (m

sec)

Est

imat

ed

SEL

Pe

r St

rike

O

FF

1941

182

3054

± 1

292

13

- 17

6 ±

162

169

13.1

20

9 3

12/1

4/05

16

feet

(b

otto

m)

Mic

arta

O

N

1861

175

1345

± 2

09

134

7 16

9 ±

153

161

21.2

19

9

Tot

al:

147

T

otal

: 19

9 1 –

Abs

olut

e pe

ak v

alue

is p

eak

unde

rpre

ssur

e.

2 – N

umbe

r of p

ile s

trik

es in

clud

ed in

the

aver

age

calc

ulat

ions

.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% �� "�"�"�"��

��

Pile 4

Pile 4 was driven with an air hammer in a water depth of 15 feet. The bubble curtain was off at the start of the drive and then 52 seconds into the drive the bubble curtain was turned on. Pile 4 was tested using a Nylon pile cap material. Tables 8 and 9 indicate the results of monitoring for Pile 4.

NYLON

The highest absolute peak from the midwater hydrophone is 196 dBpeak and the absolute highest peak from the bottom hydrophone is 194 dBpeak for Nylon. The highest midwater RMS is 183 dBRMS and bottom RMS is 181 dBRMS. The highest midwater and bottom SEL for the peak strike is 168 and 169 dBSEL respectively. Rise time for the Nylon pile cap is relatively long indicating a reduction of the transfer of energy from the hammer although there seems to be a shortening of the rise time when the bubble curtain was turned on. It is not clear why this happened. Only 29 midwater pile strike peak values (11%) exceeded 180 dBpeak with the bubble curtain on. All bottom pile strike peak values exceeded 180 dBpeak with the bubble curtain on. All pile strike RMS values exceeded 150 dBRMS for both the midwater and bottom hydrophones.

Typical SEL values are 20 to 30 dB lower than the absolute peak. The SEL for Nylon averaged around 27 dB lower than the peak. This is also an indication of the delay of the absolute peak level mentioned above and somewhat lower sound levels for the waveform peaks overall.


The average peak sound reductions achieved with the bubble curtain ranged between 7 and 11 dB. This can be seen visually in Figure 7. This indicates that the bubble curtain was operating slightly better than a typical bubble curtain.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��


Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 1961 183 5247 ± 709 15 - 178 ± 162 169 12.4 209

4 12/14/05 8 feet (midwater) Nylon

ON 184 169 681 ± 241 256 17 164 ± 146 157 5.4 196 Total: 271 Total: 196


Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 1941 181 4176 ± 598 15 - 177 ± 162 168 7.8 209

4 12/14/05 16 feet (bottom) Nylon

ON 1881 176 1800 ± 167 256 7 171 ± 150 161 2.9 196 Total: 271 Total: 196


��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

Pile 5

Pile 5 was driven with an air hammer in a water depth of 12 feet. The bubble curtain was off at the start of the drive and then 112 seconds into the drive the bubble curtain was turned on. Pile 5 was tested using a wood pile cap material. Tables 10 and 11 indicate the results of monitoring for Pile 5.

WOOD

The highest absolute peak from the midwater hydrophone is 188 dBpeak and the absolute highest peak from the bottom hydrophone is 190 dBpeak for wood. The highest midwater RMS is 175 dBRMS and bottom RMS is 176 dBRMS. The highest midwater and bottom SEL for the peak strike is 162 and 165 dBSEL respectively. Rise time for the wood pile cap is the longest of all pile cap materials tested indicating a reduction of the transfer of energy from the hammer. Fifteen midwater pile strike peak values (88%) exceeded 180 dBpeak with the bubble curtain off. Fourty-three midwater pile strike peak values (23%) exceeded 180 dBpeak with the bubble curtain on. All pile strike RMS values exceeded 150 dBRMS for both the midwater and bottom hydrophones.

Typical SEL values are 20 to 30 dB lower than the absolute peak. The SEL for the wood pile cap averaged around 26 dB lower than the peak. This is also an indication of the delay of the absolute peak level mentioned above and somewhat lower sound levels for the waveform peaks overall.


The average peak sound reductions achieved with the bubble curtain ranged between 7 and 11 dB. This can be seen visually in Figure 7. This indicates that the bubble curtain was functioning slightly better than anticipated.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��


Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 1881 175 1677 ± 544 18 - 169 ± 158 162 6.8 208

5 12/14/05 8 feet (midwater) Wood

ON 182 171 807 ± 226 186 6 166 ± 151 157 16.9 189 Total: 204 Total: 197


Pile # Date

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Bubble Curtain

Air ON/OFF

Absolute Peak (dB)

RMS (peak) (dB)

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from

Bubble Curtain

Average RMS

(dB ±±±± s.d.) SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec)

Estimated SEL

Per Strike OFF 190 176 2092 ± 601 18 - 171 ± 160 165 22.1 208

5 12/14/05 16 feet (bottom) Wood

ON 186 179 1592 ± 277 186 2 172 ± 157 163 17.1 189 Total: 204 Total: 197


��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

Pile Cap Comparisons

Sound level reduction comparisons were made for the different pile cap materials without the influence of the bubble curtain. Using wood as a pile cap clearly has the greatest sound level reductions ranging from 11 to 26 dB. Wood also had the highest rise time and the lowest SEL values for the piles tested. Unfortunately, wood compresses easily with each pile strike and does not transfer the energy from the hammer to the pile efficiently enough to warrant regular use. Wood also has a tendency to catch fire after being used as a pile cap so safety is also an issue.

Conbest had sound level reductions between 7 and 8 dB, Nylon had sound level reductions between 4 and 5 dB, and Micarta had sound level reductions between 1 and 5 dB. Rise times for these three pile cap materials were very similar as were the SEL levels. These three materials, although more expensive than wood, can be reused on several piles before they need to be changed out, do not catch fire, and have minimal compression or breakage.

Based on these results it appears that Micarta would be the best choice for pile cap material. This still allows the operator to achieve the best sound level reductions while still maintaining an efficient drive of the pile and remaining safe.

Table 12: Sound Reductions Achieved with the Different Pile Cap Materials (bubble curtain off).

Pile # Pile Type

Hydrophone Depth

Pile Cap Material

Average Peak


Average Decibel

Reduction from Pile

Cap SEL (dB)

Rise Time

(msec) None 16174 ± 4625 - 175 1.8

Conbest 8667± 5225 5 173 11.7 Midwater Wood 812 ± 168 26 154 37.7 None 9550 ± 5370 - 171 1.5

Conbest 8861 ± 4338 1 173 11.7

1 Single

Bottom Wood 910 ± 165 21 157 34.8

Midwater 7696 ± 4044 - 175 3.7 2 Winged

Bottom None

6771 ± 4226 - 176 4.6 Midwater 554 ± 138 8 169 7.8

3 Winged Bottom

Micarta 3054 ± 1292 7 169 13.1

Midwater 5247 ± 709 4 169 12.4 4 Winged

Bottom Nylon

4176 ± 598 5 168 7.8 Midwater 1677 ± 544 14 162 6.8

5 Winged Bottom

Wood 2092 ± 601 11 165 22.1

Spectral Frequency Analysis

A spectral frequency analysis was conducted on the peak pile strike (Figures 9 and 10). Figure 9 indicates that for the single pile the wood pile cap as having the greatest effect of lowering the sound levels of all frequencies even with the bubble curtain off. The Conbest pile cap was able to reduce only the higher frequencies above approximately 600 Hz with the bubble curtain off. With the bubble curtain on the frequencies for Conbest were lowered from

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

approximately 190 Hz and above. With no pile cap there was little change in frequency levels with or without the bubble curtain.

Figure 9: Spectral Frequency Analysis comparing Conbest and wood pile caps versus no caps with bubble curtain on and off.

Figure 10: Spectral Frequency Analysis comparing Micarta, Nylon, and wood pile caps versus no caps with bubble curtain on and off.

Figure 10 indicates that for the piles with ‘wings’ when the bubble curtain is off the wood pile cap was able to reduce frequency levels at all frequencies. Nylon and Micarta were able to reduce frequencies above approximately 600 Hz, similarly to Conbest above. When the bubble curtain was turned on the performance of the wood and Micarta pile caps were enhanced whereas only a slight improvement was observed for Nylon. Micarta is able to reduce frequencies above approximately 450 Hz with the bubble curtain on. Nylon actually exhibited sound levels higher than with no cap at frequencies between approximately 900 and 3500 Hz and then no difference when compared to no cap with all other frequencies.

SEL

SEL was calculated for each of the absolute peak strikes for each pile. None of the SEL values exceeded 177 dBSEL.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

Rise Time

Yelverton (1973) indicated rise time was an important factor of the mechanism of injury. According to Yelverton , the closer the peak is to the front of the impulse wave the greater the chance for injury. In other words, the shorter the rise time the higher the likelihood for effects on fish.

In all piles, except for those piles that did not use a pile cap, the rise times were relatively long. This could be an indication of sound flanking where most of the energy was not traveling directly through the water but through the sediment up to the hydrophone. However, this relationship is not entirely clear.

Airborne Noise Measurements

Maximum airborne noise levels using A-weighting were measured at three different locations around the project location (Figure 11). Figure 11 indicates the Lmax or maximum noise level recorded during a pile driving event at each location. Each location represents a different pile driving event. Lmax values ranged from 76 dBA to 89 dBA dependent mostly on distance from the source.

Biological Observations

No fish mortality or distress was observed before, during, or after pile driving. No fish were observed in the immediate area around the piles. A great blue heron flushed and flew out of the area when pile driving started on 12/13/05. A few common goldeneyes and horned grebes that were foraging adjacent to the boat ramp moved behind the small island in the embayment when pile driving started.

Future studies should identify a “control” area that is biologically similar. Biological observations in the control area could be compared to those in the study (treatment) area to help identify biological impacts of construction activity. The control area could be the study area but with observations made before construction and following. Without this type of comparison between control (or “no” treatment areas) and treatment areas it is very hard to evaluate the significance (if any) of the biological observation presented.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

Figure 11: Airborne measurement locations ( ) with A-weighted maximum values.

Distance: 50 meters 89 dBA (Lmax)

Distance: 402 meters 79.5 dBA (Lmax)

Distance: 563 meters 76 dBA (Lmax)

Pile Driving Location

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

CONCLUSIONS

The pile cap material Micarta achieved the best sound level reductions, with the exception of wood. In most cases both bubble curtain designs, standard ring and “U” shaped curtain, performed as well as expected or better.

All piles, with the exception of the piles with no pile caps, had relatively long rise times. The longer rise times may relate to sound flanking through the sediment and may be somewhat protective to fish injury. However, these relationships are not clearly identified at this time.

None of the SEL values calculated on the absolute peak pile strike exceeded the proposed threshold of 194 dB SEL (Hastings and Popper, 2005). None of the calculated SEL values exceeded the estimated SEL per strike thresholds based on the total number of pile strikes. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the piles driven with an impact hammer for this project would have caused physical injury or mortality to fish and none were observed.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% �� !�!�!�!��

��

*+&+*+�,+�

Hastings, M. C. (1995). "Physical effects of noise on fishes." Proceedings of INTER-NOISE 95, The 1995 International Congress on Noise Control Engineering, vol. II, pp. 979–984.

Hastings, Mardi C., 2002. Clarification of the Meaning of Sound Pressure Levels and the

Known Effects of Sound on Fish. White Paper. August 2002. Hastings, Mardi C.; and Arthur N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. White Paper.

January 2005. Longmuir, C., and T. Lively. 2001. Bubble curtain systems for use during marine pile driving.

Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd., New Westminster, BC, Canada. Yelverton, J. T., D. R. Richmond, E. R. Fletcher, and R. K. Jones. 1973. Safe distance from

underwater explosions for mammals and birds. Technical Report DNA 3114 T. Defense Nuclear Agency, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% �� "�"�"�"��

��

- +�.$/-0�-1+&2*3 -�-45�$�&$6�*+�

$4+�0,2��+�(7��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 6a

Figure 6b

Figure 12: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Conbest pile cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0,2��+�(��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 7a

Figure 7b

Figure 13: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Conbest Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�22.��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 8a

Figure 8b

Figure 14: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�22.��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 9a

Figure 9b

Figure 15: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�2 $4+,- ��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 10a

Figure 10b

Figure 16: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�2 $4+,- ��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 11a

Figure 11b

Figure 17: Waveform Analysis of Pile 1 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�2 $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 12a

Figure 12b

Figure 18: Waveform Analysis of Pile 2 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Final Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�2 $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 13a

Figure 13b

Figure 19: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 2 Sound Pressure Levels with No Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�03$,-*(- $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 14a

Figure 14b

Figure 20: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 3 Sound Pressure Levels with Micarta Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% �� !�!�!�!��

��

$4+�03$,-*(- $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 15a

Figure 15b

Figure 21: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 3 Sound Pressure Levels with Bubble Curtain Second Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% �� "�"�"�"��

��

$4+�0�542� $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 16a

Figure 16b

Figure 22: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 4 Sound Pressure Levels with Nylon Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�542� $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 17a

Figure 17b

Figure 23: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 4 Sound Pressure Levels with Nylon Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�22. $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2&&

Figure 18a

Figure 18b

Figure 24: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 5 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain Off, Midwater and Bottom.

��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��#��$�%��&��'(��) ��% ��

��

$4+�0�22. $4+,- 8��4+,�*(-$�2�

Figure 19a

Figure 19b

Figure 25: Waveform Analysis of Pile Number 5 Sound Pressure Levels with Wood Pile Cap and Bubble Curtain On, Midwater and Bottom.

cape disappointment pile driving report - tethys · 2020. 1. 27. · ˇˆ ˇˆ˙˝˝˛ pile # date...

Documents